jakad_23-09-cth ulasn

8/7/2019 jakad_23-09-cth ulasn

1/12

Akodrmika No. 23, Juhi 1983ULASAN BUKUIBOOK R E V I E W

Mohd Aris Hj. Othman, Thedymmieso fM&~ufentity, Monograf No. 7 FakultiSains Kernasyarakatan dan Kernanusiaan, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia,Bangi, 1983.

The problem of analysing the different levels of ethnic identity andthe conditions that influence the adoption of a particular form ofidentity is an important problem precisely because group boundariesare continually redefined by particular exigencies as well as bystructural relations that govern a group's existence. Mohd Aris'monograph addresses itself to this problem quite typically by merelyemphasizing the particular meanings that are attached to theidentity "Malay" as well as the situations when these particularmeanings were invoked. This was the empirical problem; its analysishowever did not go beyond describing the different meanings andsituations when they were observed to have occurred. In this sense,The dynamics ofMalay identity is an apt description of the phenomenonrather than the conceptual framework that is proposed.

The recognition that a group's identity is the product of a dynamicprocess by itself does not promise that its analysis is likewise dynamicin capturing a good part of the process. Mohd Aris' analysis is, forlack of a better word, static because it merely contrasts the differentmeanings that is attached to the identity "Malay" by reporting theobserved situations when each of the different meanings were articulat-ed. Thus the regional image oof one's "Malayness" (as in "MelayuKelantan" or "Melayu Johor") were found in situations whenthese lie-individuals gather among themselves in such events like thefeast. Alternatively, "Malay" may refer merely to those "Malays"of the various regions of Malaysia. The conditions which seem to havefacilitated such a xenophobic distinction (i.e., between local versusforeign Malays) indude such varied factors as unequal participationin the "realm of business enterprise", "discrimination" as well ascultural differences such as language and customs. Finally, the localexpression of "Malay" may also refer to both "local" and "foreign"Malays. But this time cultural similarity becomes prominent; Islamand bahasa Mehyu thus eclipse regional identities in the spirit ofpromoting social cohesion (p. 30). At a more general, supra-local level,


2/12

the identity "Malay" derives its meaning from its opposition(read antagonistic relations) with the Chinese and Indians in thepolitical (as in the struggle for&a Mehyu to be the national language,Malay culture as the basis of the national culture) and economic(such as Malay backwardness) arena. And finally, as a gesture tohistory, this supra-local meaning of the "Malay" identity was alsocrystallized by their (unexplained) animosities during the JapaneseOccupation and in the years of the Malayan Emergency.

There is therefore a long list of "situations" that invoked one ofthe many levels of "Malayness". There is, of course, some value toproviding a catalogue of "situations" that invoked one of the otheridentities. Its value is limited however. This is so because the academictask is not merely to observe but to also analyse. The author did noteven present a specific hypothesis on the conditions that wouldinfluence the invocation of a particular identity. This is why themonograph is a narration instead of an explanation of boundarymaintenance. It is for this reason that the problem was purely anempirical one: "to examine the meanings attached to being a Malayin various kinds of situations and at various levels of ethnicinterrelationship" (p. 11) . There was therefore no suggestion of thetheoretical relevance and significance of the problem. Neither wasthere any attempt to generalize the many situations into somecommon denominators that may facilitate a typology of situationswhich, in turn, could provide useful hypotheses toward a betterunderstanding of the dynamics of boundary maintenance.

By posing the problem as a purely empirical one, the author leavessome basic conceptual and theoretical problems untouched. Theproblem of Malay identity, for instance, was not posed within abroader concern for an understanding of what is an ethnic group;boundaries move continually, but what precisely are the elements thatare contained within it? This lack of concern has a telling effect; theauthor inappropriately, everywhere, refers to the 'Malaysian Malays"and the "Indonesian Malays" as "ethnic groups" in ways nodifferent from the Chinese and the Indians, as if the Minangkabauor the Javanese in Malaysia are ethnic groups in the same sense asChinese and Indians are. "Bangsa Melayu" was also inappropriatelyand insensitively translated as "Malay stock" instead of "the Malaynation". The conceptual and political consequences of this error aretoo wide-ranging as to constitude as part of a review. A short triparound history would have greatly clarified the author's apparent~uzzlementover the Javanese being easily regarded as Malays


3/12

although some of their culture may be unIslamic (I should add thatthere are also some traits in Malay culture that do not conform tothe tenetwof Islam. A good part of this is because the Malay nationpredates Islamic influence in this region).

Because there was no attempt to converge these different situationstoward a theoretical point, the movement from one identity to theother was left unexplained, except in an ad& manner. Thus "Malay"in Kampung Baharu includes all Malaysian and Indonesian Malaysas well as the D.K.K. and the Malaysian Arabs because of the desireto "promote local cohesion", or because "religion becomes a licensefor inter-ethnic visiting, exchange of food during the fasting monthand the feeling of mutual trust" (p. 30).

The author did however try to reconcile these varied situations byutilizing a more general concept- hat of "structural opposition",as is organized around the "segmentary principle" * where "theshifting of the frame of reference depends on the group one findsoneself in and who the opposed groups are" (p. 24). This concepthowever is merely a descriptive rather than an analytical one,i.e. the concept merely refers to the idea that the "we" is definedby the particular "they". It does not refer to anything further thanthis. It does not, for instance, contain suggestions as to who these"they" might be under certain conditions. It is not to be deniedhowever that this descriptive concept was fluid (but not analytical)enough as to suggest that the problem of identity should not beconstructively seen as identity transformation or oscillation since itmay well involve "variation in meanings of the same identity9'(p. 56). But that is as far as it could go. The idea of opposition seemsto suggest antagonistic relations. These antagonistic relations were hardlyspecified except in the most fenera1 way. What were thefissures that separatethe Johorfrom the Kedah or Kclatan Malay? Wha t were the more immediateand more important sources o f c o n ~ c that eclipsed the feelings o f regionalismfor some bro& identitv?,In essence then, Mohd Aris accon~plished ittle except to documentthe fact that the identity "Malay" inhcrcs diflercnt meaninqs underdifferent situations. The first of these has a regional connotation asin "Melayu Selangor" or "Melayu Kelantan", thereby invoking aparticular image that corresponds to the culture of the region. Theother reference is a more general one, encompassing "all Malays"as a homogenous entity. Precisely who may be included in this categoryhas varied however. This broader meaning has assumed two different*Evens-Pritchard.E.E. 1940), 77u N w , Oxford


4/12

meanings. The first refers to "Malaysian Malays" while the secondrefers to a yet wider group to include both the Indonesian and theMalaysian Malays as well as the D.K.K. and the Malaysian Arabs.

At the supra-local level, the meaning shifts to be more administrativethan social in character:

"While Malay as an ethnic category is manifested in varioussituations and levels of ethnic interrelationships, Malay as a categorydefined by the Federal Constitution does not emerge in dailyinteraction. It only exists in the context of the Constitution. It isnot a category conceived mentally by the various ethnic groups inreal life situation" (p. 50).The narrowest frame of reference of what constitutes the Malay

has a tinge of regionalism. That this is characteristic of the Malaysocial reality is beyond doubt. What is more contentious however isthe author's claim that this feeling is "still strong". There is of coursea problem of measurement. That aside, even the author himself doesnot furnish sufficient evidence to prove this point. O n the contrary,it was admitted that "it is only after engaging an informant in areasonably long period of time of conversation that his regional identityis revealed" (p. 27) .The contention that the supra-local definition of the Malays, asis embodied in the Federal Constitution, is different and must be keptseparate from the "ethnic" (or more correctly, social definition atthe local level is a false arguement. I would argue that the supra-localdefinition of what the Malay is no different from its usage at the locallevel.

The process of being recognised as assuming a particular identityis the product of a continual evaluation of the community. This isa social process, where the monitoring and assessment of one's"Malayness" is done continually at all levels (local and supra-local),on account of one's cultural-ideological make-up. The mostimportant elements are already included in the Federal Constitution(language, religion, customs). Similarly, who qualifies to be a Malay,at the local level depends on whether one lives "like a Malay"; whichincludes such things as to whether one speaks Bahasa Malaysiahabitually, professes Islam and conforms to the Malay odat, regardlessof whether one is by ancestry a "Melayu Semenanjung", "MelayuSeherang", "Bugis", "Jawa", Chinese, Indian or an Arab.** As"This has been clearly docurnentedby Lim H in Fui in a recently completed researchwhich has been submitted as fulfdment for the Master Social Science degree,Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, 1983.


5/12

we very well know, all the elements in the constitutional definitionof the Malays are therefore included in the local definition of whois a Malay.

It might be argued, as Mohd Aris did, that the constitutionaldefinition is different from the Kampung Baharu local constituionin that the latter explicitly specifies that, apart from professing Islamand conforming to Malay adnt, a Malay need also be one who is fromany sub-group of the Malay nation (daripada sebaranp. bangsaMelayu). Because the latter is not a qualification for one'seligibility to be administratively regarded as a Malay (this is obviouslythe case because it is a bureaucratic process), and hence the materialopportunities that follow, Mohd Aris sees the "constitutionaldefinition of Malay is intended to include not only the Malaysthemselves, the various Indonesian ethnic groups, the Arabs andD.K.K. but also the Chinese, Indians and Others who are citizens of thecountry (emphasis added) (p. 36). The Chinese, Indians and Othershave been included because they could "qualify as a Malay in thiscategory .." by becoming "a Muslim and be able to speak Malay"(p. 8). Conformity to Malay adat is therefore inconsequential to one'squalification to be a Malay at the supra-local level, i.e., from thebureaucratic point of view - in the political context of grantingeconomic and political privilege" (p. 8). Such a situation arisesostensibly because the Malay adat is not defined in the constitution.Thus, for all intents and purposes "Malay adat (customs) imply thoseaspects of hehaviour which conform to the Muslim religion. In thissense, therefore, Malay customs and Muslim religion, are, in manyrespects, coterminous" (p. 37). The author has therefore concludedthat because a Muslim Chinese or Indian could qualify (through thebureaucaratic process) for the privileges of the Malays, helshe istherefore a Malay. Consequently, because helshe is a Malay, con-formity to Malay odat has, in fact, become irrelevant to be recognis-ed as a Malay. The above arguement is a false one because an iden-tity is not to be judged by the success of weaving through some ad-ministrative or constitutional definition but by the actual social pro-cess. Fmm this point of view, whoever manages to be sieved throughas a Malay in the process of according material opportunities neednot necessarily be a Malay. The litmus test then is not at one's suc-cess in the bureaucratic process but the Malay community's judge-ment on the gap between the administrative and their own social defini-tion. This crucial point was not emphasized. The author providesus a good instance from which we could use to illustrate this point.


6/12

The Kampung Baharu constitutional definition of a Malay explicitlyexpects its members are from any ethnic component of the Malaynation. This was part of the formal definition. The social definition,in contrast, includes the D.K.K., the Arabs and even an individualof Siamese origin. There is obviously a different; what should con-cern us is whether this difference is approved or otherwise. In theKampung Baharu case, the difference is inconsequential. The defini-tional difference at the "supra-local level'' has shown some cause forconcern. The seriousness of this concern has reached a point whereMuslim converts now have to register their original surnames togetherwith their newly acquired Muslim (Malay) names (Lin Hin Fui, 1983).The two examples above uphold our point that what is materialis the community's judgement on the administrative-constitutionaldefinition of their identity. The Kampung Baharu example illustratesan instance where the administrative-constitutional definition is unrealwhile the definition embodied in the Federal Constitution is congruentwith the local-level definition. The "supra-locai" identity suggestedby the author is therefore an imagined one.

It is most unfortunate that the author was content to define theproblem before him in a purely empirical manner inspite of the longgestation period taken for the publication of the research undertaken,during which time some serious contemplative effort would haveenlightened us much farther than what has been done previously.

Muhammad Ikmal SaidUniversiti Sains Malaysia

Wan Hashim, Race Relatiom in M&y&, Heinemann Education Books,Singapore, 1982.

The availability of Wan H a s h i ' s book should be welcome to thosedesiring to learn about race relations in contemporav Malaysia. The-author does not analyse events in depth, as h e seems to lack thenecessary theoretical tools to do justice to such a complex topic. Eventhough some of his arguments are self-contradictory and not wellresearched, Race Rclntionr in Malaysia is a good attempt at giving apartial indication of the reasons for increasing racial tensionexperienced in recent years.

This is in fact at once the book's weakness and its value. T o date,quite a few well-researched papers have already appeared on this


7/12

topic1 though they are found scattered in various academic publica-tions too "erudite" and inaccessible to the common layman. Thougha number of the more important contributions are not mentioned bythe author, he has made a laudable attempt to present these viewsin a simplified manner thus making the task of assessing racerelations in Malaysia slightly easier. Of course there is no substitutefor reading these more academic works but at least the layman willnow have some idea of the "tides" and "currents" before delvingdeeper into the topic.

However, in simplifying the discussions there is also the dangerof misrepresenting the complexities of Malaysian social reality. Forinstance, when working with notions such as "integration" and"assimilation", racial problems are viewed as a hitch in good racerelations exercise.

The general feeling one is left with after reading the book is thatthe ideological mode employed to make sense of the presence of variousraces in Malaysia remains in the genre of cultural conflict. Social andeconomic perspective are included but are discussed only at a verysuperficial level. Different races are seen as "problems" forintegration and assimilation. In spite of having access to a good rangeof existing works on the problems facing the various races in Malaysia,the author does not appear to have grasped the dialectical relationsbetween political and economic organisation and communalism. Ifcertain deprived groups have been struggling against deprivation andinequality, these struggles are emphatically not struggles for betterrace relations. They are struggles against economic exploitation,material deprivation, physical repression and ideological obfuscationin this communally-oriented capitalist society.

The time frame of this book is wide, spanning the colonial periodto the 1970s. The opening chapters, primarily historical, are amongstthe strongest in the book. In them the author traces the introductionof "economic modernization" with the establishment of colonial rule- he inclusion of Malaya into the world capitalist system - mainlyas a major exporter of rubber and tin (p. 15) and a captive marketfor industrial Europe. Here the author also discusses British policyof separate development for the indigenous peasants and the'see, for instance, Cham, B . N . , Class and Communal Conflict in Malaysia, Jour-nal ojContmpornry Aria, Vol. 5 , No. 4, 1975.Muhammed Ikmal Said, The Dialec-tics of Ethnic and Class Conflicts: Some Illustrations from the Malaysian Case(Mimeo); and Stenson M . , Class and Race in West Malaysia, Bu1:ctin o ConrmedAsian Scholars, Vol. 8, No. 2 , 1976.


8/12

indentured labour of various races brought in to work the plantationsand mines. Chapters Three and Four describe the rise of ethnicnationalisms amongst the Malay, Chinese and Indian communities,each drawing inspiration from external sources- he Malays fromthe Middle East and Indonesia, the Chinese from China and theIndians from India. The significance of the class basis of these manyseparate movements can be observed by the discerning reader thoughthey are only cursorily mentioned by the author. For instance, theKaum Muda Reformist (Islamic) Movement attacked the aristocraticclass including the Malay rulers (p. 26) whilst other Malay associa-tions - ne of which became the direct predecessor of the UnitedMalay National Organisation - were Led by the English educatedMalays who at that time came primarily from the traditional rulingclass. Other examples would be the KMM and the PKMM. The richChinese on the other hand were more affiliated to the localKumintang group whilst the Chinese workers found more sympathetictreatment by the Communist Party of Malaya. These nascent classpolarizations within ethnic organisations were short-lived and weredealt their death blow by the divisive policies practised during thebrief Japanese rule between February 1942 and September 1945(p. 38). Any lingeringleft-wingtendencieswere completely annihilatedby the British who, in view of their weakness after the war, had toresort to communal policies to prolong their rule and to ensureperpetuation of their interests. Thus was communal policies institu-tionalised in Malaya.

Chapters Five and Six describe briefly factors contributing to "badrace relations" - emographic concentration and uneven develop-ment among different races; racial and cultural differences andcommunal politics.Chapters Seven and Eight describe attempts by the governmentto "integrate" the three races in Malaysia after the 1969 race riots.It is a shame that the socio-economic perspective in whichcontemporary Malaysian society is analysed is "unsubstantiated",insufficient and even at times incoherent and self-contradictory. Theauthor is content with superficialities such as "The government'sattempts to raise the economic position of the Malays wil l only generateincreasing frustrations among the non-Malays' (p. 100).After listinggovernment programs to integrate the various races through the NewEconomic Policy aimed at decompartmentalisation of various racesin Malaysian society, the national eductional policy, the fiveprinciples of the Rukun Negara [national ideology embracing belief


9/12

in God, loyalty to King, upholding the constitution, rule of law, andgood behaviour and morality - . 94/ the author concludes that"with the implementation of all the policies, Malaysia can lookforward towards the future with some optimism although it could bepostulated that the road to national integration is still far away"(p. 94). These two chapters come near to treating cultural conflictas the motive force of Malaysian history.

The author has not considered that when Malaysians developedcertain attitudes about race, it was within the context of specific worldpower and economic relations that these views took form andperpetuated themselves. There seems to be confusion between racialprejudice genuinely felt with the kind of prejudice that is consciouslyand willfully manipulated in Malaysian politics. Thus the role of theruling party- he Alliance and the present Barisan National - ndthe state which has become masters at the game of racial politics goesunemphasised. The complexity of their roles in Malaysian history arenot explained- oles not susceptible to a racial analysis. They h ~ v ealso facilitated the rise and maintenance of our capitalist economy.More generally, the presence of this class raises the question of theirrelationship to international capital. Such questions go unansweredand are not acknowledged as crucial lines of inquiry. An analysis ofthis nature (already available in a more academic form) wouldprovide a useful counterpoint to this study.

Whist Malaysians wait breathlessly for the coming of the next stageof integration (as predicted by the author) where identities areexpected to merge (p. 106) how does one conceive of the presentgovernment strategy of taking in quick cheap migrant labour fromBangladesh, Indonesia and Micronesia to man our plantations andconstruction industries? Instead of attempting to reshape ourtechnological, industrial and economic structures, we are resortingto the embarassing mechanism of exploiting foreign surplus labourand further depriving our own labour of a more proportionate risein their standard of living. In its detail the new wave of migrantworkers are different from that of the indentured labour imported inthe 19th century, but structurally it is essentially the same story.However, "senitive" but important issues such as these are not givenadequate consideration in this work.

Hing Ai YunUniversiti Malaya


10/12


11/12

AKADEMIKA AKADEMIKA AKADEMIKA AKADEMIKA AKADEMIKA AKADEMIKA AKADEMIKA AKADEMIKAH a n t a r k an p e s a na k t u a n k ep ad a: P E N E R B I T U N I V E R S I T I K E B A N G S A A N M A L A Y S I A ,Smd your ordns to U n i v e r s i t i K e b a n g s a a n M a l a y s i a , B a n g i , S e l a n g o r , M A L A Y S I A .

A h d m i k a , B U N o. 1, Julai 1972A h d m i k a , B U N o . 2, anuary 1973A h d m i k a , BillNo. 3, Julai 1973A h d m i k a , BillNo. 4, anuari 1974Ahd m i k a , B U N o. 5, ulai 1974Akadrmika, BiVNo. 6, anuari 1975Ahd m i k a , B U N o. 7, ulai 1975Ahd m i k a , BillNo. 8, anuari 1976Ahd m i k a , B i I N o . 9, ulai 1976A h d m i k a , B i l N o . 10, anuar i 1977A h d m i k a , BilINo. 11, Julai 1977

Ahd m i k a , BiVNo. 12. J anua r i 19780 A h d m i h , B U N o. 13, ulai 1978Ahd m i k a , BillNo. 14, anua r i 1979Ahd m i k a , B U N o. 15, ulai 1979

Ahd m i k a , BUNo. 16, anua r i 1980O Ahd m i k a , B U N o . 17, ulai 1980Ahd m i k a , BiVNo. 18. Januar i 1981Ahd m i k a , BillNo. 19, ulai 1981Akademikn, BilINo. 20 & 21, anuari-Julai 1982Aliodmika, BilINo. 22, anua r i 1983Akodmiko, BilINo. 23, ulai 1983

PodPortagc: Tambahanladd MS0.40 e n a s W @ r copyBayar bank drafki r iman wang atas nam dM nkyo trr bonk &(?IL/mmq mders@yb[r Lo: Bendahnri, Univeniti Kebnngumn MalaysiaH a r a p poskan urnal kepadalPkors moil the j o v r d ordnrd to:

Disertakanlafluhcd: Ba nk draftbonk draflK iriman Wang lMorgr Orders No: TandatanganISi-C:


12/12

jakad_23-09-cth ulasn

Documents

Transcript of jakad_23-09-cth ulasn